The Infinite Game

by Simon Sinek

even after we succeeded, we kept going. We did these things not because of the promise of an end-of-year bonus; we did these things because we felt like we were contributing to something bigger than ourselves, something with value that would last well beyond our own lifetimes.

For all its benefits, acting with an infinite, long-term view is not easy. It takes real effort. As human beings we are naturally inclined to seek out immediate solutions to uncomfortable problems and prioritize quick wins to advance our ambitions. We tend to see the world in terms of successes and failures, winners and losers.

Great leaders set up their organizations to succeed beyond their own lifetimes, and when they do, the benefits—for us, for business and even for the shareholder—are extraordinary.

In an infinite game, the primary objective is to keep playing, to perpetuate the game.

No matter how successful we are in life, when we die, none of us will be declared the winner of life. And there is certainly no such thing as winning business. All these things are journeys, not events.

When we lead with a finite mindset in an infinite game, it leads to all kinds of problems, the most common of which include the decline of trust, cooperation and innovation.

The true value of an organization is measured by the desire others have to contribute to that organization’s ability to keep succeeding, not just during the time they are there, but well beyond their own tenure.

Lego invented a toy that has stood the test of time not because it was lucky, but because nearly everyone who works there wants to do things to ensure that the company will survive them. Their drive is not to beat the quarter, their drive is to “continue to create innovative play experiences and reach more children every year.”

Where a finite-minded player makes products they think they can sell to people, the infinite-minded player makes products that people want to buy. The former is primarily focused on how the sale of those products benefits the company; the latter is primarily focused on how the products benefit those who buy them.

To ask, “What’s best for me” is finite thinking. To ask, “What’s best for us” is infinite thinking.

We do not think in quarters,” he says. “We think in generations.”

Consistency becomes more important than intensity.

Any leader who wants to adopt an infinite mindset must follow five essential practices: Advance a Just Cause Build Trusting Teams Study your Worthy Rivals Prepare for Existential Flexibility Demonstrate the Courage to Lead

Just Cause is a specific vision of a future state that does not yet exist; a future state so appealing that people are willing to make sacrifices in order to help advance toward that vision.

A Just Cause must be: For something—affirmative and optimistic Inclusive—open to all those who would like to contribute Service oriented—for the primary benefit of others Resilient—able to endure political, technological and cultural change Idealistic—big, bold and ultimately unachievable

The reality is, EVERYONE is passionate about something, but we aren’t all passionate about the same thing. Infinite-minded leaders actively seek out employees, customers and investors who share a passion for the Just Cause. For employees, this is what we mean when we say, “Hire for culture and you can always teach the skills later.” For customers and investors, this the root of love and loyalty for the organization itself.

Markets will rise and fall, people will come and go, technologies will evolve, products and services will adapt to consumer tastes and market demands. We need something with permanence for us to rally around. Something that can withstand change and crisis. To keep us in the Infinite Game, our Cause must be durable, resilient and timeless.

As Henry Ford said, “A business that makes nothing but money is a poor kind of business.”

Money can buy a lot of things. Indeed, we can motivate people with money; we can pay them to work hard. But money can’t buy true will.

How we treat people is how they treat us.

There is a difference between a group of people who work together and a group of people who trust each other. In a group of people who simply work together, relationships are mostly transactional, based on a mutual desire to get things done.

to build high-performing teams, trust comes before the performance.

Performance is about technical competence. How good someone is at their job. Do they have grit? Can they remain cool under pressure? Trust is about character. Their humility and sense of personal accountability. How much they have the backs of their teammates when not in combat. And whether they are a positive influence on other team members.

What the SEALs discovered is that the person in the top left of the graph—the high performer of low trust—is a toxic team member. These team members exhibit traits of narcissism, are quick to blame others, put themselves first, “talk shit about others” and can have a negative influence on their teammates, especially new or junior members of the team. The SEALs would rather have a medium performer of high trust, sometimes even a low performer of high trust (it’s a relative scale), on their team than the high performer of low trust. If the SEALs, who are some of the highest-performing teams in the world, prioritize trust before performance, then why do we still think performance matters first in business?

in business, we have all sorts of metrics to measure someone’s performance, but we have few if any effective metrics to measure someone’s trustworthiness. The funny thing is, it is actually incredibly easy to identify the high performers of low trust on any team. Simply go to the people on the team and ask them who the asshole is. They will likely all point to the same person.

To help them feel safe from humiliation, for example, he depersonalized the problems his executives faced. “You have a problem,” he would tell them.6 “You are not the problem.”

The ability for any organization to build new leaders is very important. Think of an organization like a plant. No matter how strong it is, no matter how tall it grows, if it cannot make new seeds, if it is unable to produce new leaders, then its ability to thrive for generations beyond is nil. One of the primary jobs of any leader is to make new leaders. To help grow the kind of leaders who know how to build organizations equipped for the Infinite Game. However, if the current leaders are more focused on making their plant as big as possible, then, like a weed, it will do whatever it needs to do to grow. Regardless of the impact it has on the garden (or even the long-term prospects of the plant itself).

leaders are not responsible for the results, leaders are responsible for the people who are responsible for the results.

It is common practice in the working world to choose language that softens or obscures the impact of our behavior. We talk about managing “externalities” instead of talking plainly about “the harm our manufacturing practices cause to the people who work in our factories and to the environment.” “Gamification to enhance the user experience” is easier to swallow than “we found a way to get people addicted to our product to boost our results.” Human beings become “data points,” and “data mining” is a more palpable way of saying that we are tracking people’s every click, trip and personal habit. We “reduce head counts,” and the online ticket broker charges us a “convenience fee” instead of calling it what it is, a surcharge.

It’s easier to trust a process than to trust people. Or so we think. In reality, “process will always tell us what we want to hear,”22 Dr. Wong points out. “[Process] gives us a green light,” he continues, “but it may not be telling us the truth.”

Competitors compete for customers. Rivals look for followers.

(As it turns out, long-term shareholders, like Berkshire Hathaway, have their own analysts and tend not to be swayed by the twenty-four-hour financial news cycle.)

Integrity does not just mean “doing the right thing.” Integrity means acting before the public outcry or scandal. When leaders know about something that is unethical and only act after the outcry, that’s not integrity. That’s damage control.

In my life, the only common factor in all my failed relationships is me. The common factor in all the struggles and setbacks that finite leaders face is their own finite thinking. To admit that takes courage. To work to open one’s mind to a new worldview takes even more courage. Especially when we know many of our choices will go badly. To actually take steps to apply an infinite mindset to an organization’s culture can seem to many like it would take insurmountable courage. And the truth is, it does. For it can be embarrassing, even humiliating, to admit that we are part of the problem. It can also be empowering and inspiring to decide to be a part of the solution.